A. Defendant 1 did not wish to mistake the facts against D. Defendant 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles - the part not guilty) stated that the Defendant merely interfered with the meeting that “whether the Defendant interfered with the division of a company’s organization by receiving the company’s death,” and that it is not reasonable to separately evaluate the victim’s abusive and the above expressions at the time. As such, the Defendant’s above remarks do not violate the social rules, and thus, the illegality is not dismissed by Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

The lower judgment is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in determining the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts are: ① D consistently states that he had a desire from the defendant to the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below; ② E/F at the time was made with the contents consistent with D's above statement at the court of the court of the court below; ② there are no special circumstances or motive that E/F made a false statement to gather the defendant; ③ I testified that he did not hear any desire at all at the court of the court of the court below, which used a Handphone to manipulate the handphone at the time; thus, it is difficult to regard as an witness to accurately state the situation at the time (as 94 pages of the court of the court record), ④ in the court of the court of the court of the court below, “I think it was between the defendant and D, but there was no desire at the time,” and thus, the defendant's statement is considered as having not expressed D's desire to do so (as 107, 1087).